Designations

[BankNote1]

I try not to smell a rat, but I think you might have found one! Ole Homerun prob. has at least a million FT's ready to add to his sales list.

[Dermott]

I would have to go with the "Full Strike" designation as a catch-all... otherwise the coin grading "system" will end up sooner or later with a bogged down set of grades, sub-grades, designation, etc etc etc. It would be nice to see a clean standardized addition to the Sheldon scale and * designation without needing a chart of designations to figure out where your coin falls in on the scale. Full Bell Lines, FSB, Full Head, Full lines, Full Torch, etc all go back to one key point... it's a Full Strike. That one term alone should signify enough to the viewer of the coin.

 

After taking awhile and thinking about it, a slabbed coin should have the following attributes:

 

Coin Type, Date, MM (Standard)

 

Grade (Sheldon Scale... after reading about ACG and such, I fully support the ANA's Certification program and personally think that a company that grades coins professionally should have to be certified by the ANA to be able to use the Sheldon Scale. ACG should be somehow prevented from using the 70 point designation as they claim to use their own scale... as should any other comany unwilling to follow the accepted grading standards. Yes I also realize some people's reluctance to trust the ANA, however right now, it is the best organized system we have.)

 

Full Strike (If it is indeed a full strike, no relying on one small portion, the entirety of the coin must reach)

 

* (Exceptional eye-appeal or luster... something that really doesn't affect the technical grade, but DOES affect the overall quality of the coin)

 

Cameo/Prooflike (To deignate Cams, DCams, PLs and DMPLs appropriately... again, something extra that doesn't necessarily affect grade, but does affect overall quality)

 

Error/Variety (If applicable)

 

That way, the system would stay uniform across ALL coins of all types.

[GDJMSP]

Let me ask a question - what is the purpose of any designation - whether it be CAM, UCAM, FBL, FS or FT ? For that matter - what is the purpose of a grade ? Are not all of them used to better describe the coin in question ? And if they are used to describe the coin in question - then it seems to me that designations serve a useful purpose.

 

As for Full Strike being used across the board instead of designations - I don't see that the two are interchangeable. It is possible to have FBL or FS ( or any of the others ) and not have a Full Strike. Now you folks correct me if I am wrong - but a Full Strike is not necessary until you reach the grade of MS69 or 70. So if Full Strike were used in place of designations - we wouldn't have any - or very dang few. What's more - a grade of MS69 or 70 implies a full strike anyway - so why the designation ? I do not like the idea of using a designation such as Full Strike on a coin that only grades MS66 - to me it implies something that is not true.

 

I like designations - they help to describe the condition of the coin. And in this age of sight unseen buying - I'll take all the descriptive help I can get.

[Dermott]

Well, I have no problems with descriptors in ads from sellers/shops, but you have to admit that you don't exactly have a lot of label space to work with on any of the current slabs (about 2 in across, 1 to 1.5 down), so it would help to have a system that allows for a general overview of the coin.

 

However, as much as one part of me wants to keep the system simple yet informative, the other part of me knows that NGC IS a business at the core of the issue and new designations = new submissions. It'd be a BIG mistake for them NOT to follow the trends or fads of the industry be it super-grade registry sets or attributing a coin to the most minute details, so I can't blame them or any other grading company for doing what they are doing... as long as it falls in generally accepted grading.

 

I just hope that NGC is careful in the endeavor and they remain a quality grading service first and foremost and don't get caught up in "gimmicks" as I have seen with a competitor service.

 

Personally for me, Full Strike would only appear on an MS level coin (since wear would remove the fullness of the strike by its very nature), but not a REQUISITE up until you hit 68, 69, and ABSOLUTELY necessary for a 70 (which is a grade I wonder about in the first place, but that's an entirely different thread). WIth any extra designation, you have to be careful... give it away too freely and you devalue both the coins that don't reach the designation as well as those that do. It SHOULD be a rare occurrance, but one that should be noticable.

[crito]

I like the "Full Strike" idea too. One of my pet peeves has always been fully struck coins that fail to get a FSB or FBL due to an unfortunate contact mark in the wrong place. One really shouldn't have anything to do with the other, IMHO (strike vs marks, that is).

 

[Hoot]

I think you are mistaken about the contribution of strike to grade, and thus with your comparison of it to die state and luster. For Mint State coins, a gem needs to be well struck, not fully struck.

 

I must not have made myself clear. Of course strike adds to the equation when a coin is evaluated for MS or PF grade. I think that the buffalo nickel series is an excellent example of where strike plays a very important role in the grade. And at what qualitative or quantitative point do you begin to factor in die state and lustre? These are used as descriptors all the time, and they may factor into coins of gem and super gem status, but they do not appear on the slab.

 

What I said was that the strike designation does not play a role. (And as I explain below, I don't think it should until the coin reaches super gem status). I also said that the grade is attained from the overall character of the strike (fullness, well-struckness, if you will) and a whole bunch of other features of the coin.

 

I have to agree with GDJSMP and perhaps he states it more clearly than I've been able to. The designation imparts information, that's all. And i'd also agree that a coin in superlative grades of 68, 69, 70 MUST have complete fullness of strike, including the features that impart what we are calling strike designations. Again, buffalo nickels are a good example. The FEW MS68 examples I've seen had the same virtual detail as the high-end proofs. Just unreal. That's why there are so few. Also to note, I have seen auctioned (over the internet and not in person) a few Jefferson nickels with MS68 grades but no FS designation. Truthfully, this made no sense to me. Wish I could have seen them in person to compare with the 67s I own. I think that the top grade for the series should be 67 without full steps. Those coins are veritably flawless.

 

One other issue is the strike designation on proofs. For Jefferson nickels, for example, it's relevant, especially in the years of 1950-1970 with the intervening SMS years. Again, this would impart information, nothing more. BTW, ANACS does this now.

 

I think it's nuts to pay funny money for certain coins with strike designations vs. quite a number without. I'm guilty as sin of it with Jeffs. However, if you look at my sets now, you'll see more and more coins where I have relented . The sad part of this is the registry game, and I've considered pulling my sets for the very reason of it. But here I am, only to remain in order to play a role in the larger arena of numismatics. I can only hope it has some positive influence.

 

Hoot

[CarlWohlforth]

I am all for designations from grading services. It helps non experts know about the attributes of the coin they are looking at.

 

Some say become an expert before buying any coin. Personally I didn't do that and I don't think many of us have the patience to do so. Further one needs to own a few coins for a while to really study them. Also I learned more from selling a coin than I ever did from a book or buying one.

 

But I'm getting off subject.

 

I think a "Full Strike" designation is not objective enough. While "Full Band" or "Full Head" only talks to one part of the coin it is much more objective. I realize there are issues with both approaches.

 

If any coin is special it helps to note that on the holder. I want to see variety, strike and cameo designations if applicable.

[EVillageProwler]

I think a "Full Strike" designation is not objective enough. While "Full Band" or "Full Head" only talks to one part of the coin it is much more objective. I realize there are issues with both approaches.

 

If any coin is special it helps to note that on the holder. I want to see variety, strike and cameo designations if applicable.

 

Carl,

 

How is FULL STRIKE not objective enough but CAM is? Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "objective"...

 

FULL BAND, etc., suggests that the strike of a coin is full, or very well struck. I assert that that is how most people will interpret that. But, FB, FBL, FH, etc., only targets a specific area and ignores the other areas. Moreover, a near miss Frankie because of a bag mark doesn't sit right with me when it is otherwise superbly well struck.

 

I think the "objectivity" of a broadly encompassing FULL STRIKE idea is no more or less objective than what we have today. An SLQ to have FH is still highly subjective, especially with liners. It is totally subjective to dismiss my Frankie example above from the FBL designation (because the services could just as easily said that the bag mark should not affect strike).

 

Because the FH, FB, FBL, etc., designations imply fullness of strike of a coin, why not just do it right and look at the entire coin? And, if we're not going to do it right, then let's not do it at all!

 

EVP

 

[Hoot]

Because the FH, FB, FBL, etc., designations imply fullness of strike of a coin...

 

I guess this is where opinions diverge. I don't think of these designations as implying a full strike or full, uninterrupted detail elsehwere on the coin surface. These designations are directed at focal areas of the coin, albeit they are minute. As you and others have mentioned, there are other focal areas on each and every coin with a strike designation. There are many other features to consider for understanding the series one collects and also looking for great coins, with or without the strike designation.

 

I have to believe that the disparity here lies in the fact that a coin with it's particular strike designation is somehow vastly more valuable than one without. This is expressed in the marketplace and the registry, but is illusionary for the general worth of coins with and without the designation. It's all a matter of how these things tap into our senses of appeal. And it really boils down to a matter of how a person wishes to collect, and the strike designations should only serve as a guide or a little signpost.

 

BTW, I think that strike designations best serve the market in terms of sight-unseen purchasing. There's still a big gap, in terms of dollars, between a strike designated coin and a near miss, but in terms of decisions to buy, I believe they play less of a role when purchasing sight-seen.

 

Hoot

[Oldtrader3]

Yes, they are in PCGS Slabs. The NGC Slabs on the other hand seem to be much more consistant for this attribute than PCGS is. As you mentioned some of these slabs are so flat and so broken by lines that one is hard pressed to justify how they came to designate them as FB.

 

I am going to throw my two cents worth in on strike as well. As the MS65 coin is the ne plus ultra starting point for MS coins that are judged by and sold as top grade, I would suggest that a coin should not receive the MS65 designation unless it is full strike. There are so few MS67 and above coins in most series, that they are almost uncollectable by most hobbists. The MS65 has always been the top quality threshold coin for most of us.

[CarlWohlforth]

Well I was contrasting Full Strike to Full Band or one of the other specific features. I was not comparing FS to Cameo.

 

I think we all agree the services are drawing a line somewhere in a continuum. That is a coin may have varying degrees of cameo contrast. People say if you look at cameo as being on a scale from 1 to 10 the coin gets cameo if the coin is at least 5. But really there are more than 10 levels of contrast. So it is somewhat subjective to say this coin is a 4.5 or a 5.5 on the scale.

 

I think you would have similar problems with strike. Where do you draw the line? If you only give out Full Strike for coins that are perfectly struck you will not give out many FS.

 

So I am saying full band is more objective than full strike. The line is drawn if that particular feature is fully struck. Even beginners can see if the bands are separated or not.

 

I guess people do assume that Full Head means Full Strike. It doesn't. It means the head is full. The shield may or may not be well struck. I bought one with a great shield but the head wasn't perfectly full. There are many with full heads but not full rivets on the shield. In either case the coin would not be Full Strike. I think there would be so few SLQs that are %100 fully struck as to make the FS designation worthless for them.

 

But I am pretty new to collecting and haven't looked for that many SLQs and haven't looked at MS Frankies at all.

[CarlWohlforth]

BTW I am also not decided in my thinking on the bag mark issue. If a coin is super well struck but has a bag mark on the feature (steps, bell lines, head, etc.) it is still well struck. It seems harsh to withhold the designation for a bag mark. But, like I said, I am undecided on this issue.

[EVillageProwler]

What does it matter if, by adopting the FULL STRIKE idea, it is now much harder to dispense the strike designation? Maybe it should be hard -- even VERY hard -- for some dates or even some entire series...

 

For Buff nicks, what individual feature do we use to denote that a coin is worthy of a strike designation? The Indian's hair? Or, the Buffalo's mane? Or, the horn? Why is one specific aspect more deserving than the others?

 

Better yet, for Buffs, we need to look at the rim and date!

 

EVP

 

[Hoot]

Here, here on buffs! I'm only in favor of a strike designation for buffs since it might drive down the price of a lot of really GRRRRRRRREAT! coins!

 

Hoot

[cladking]

We do the same thing with the grading of circulated coins and it can be even worse here, especially with buffalo nickels. Grade is usually very dependent on very small details which are always a high point of a coin. If a buffalo nickel was struck with very little horn detail it will tend to be graded only as a F after only a slight wear. The coin really should be called a weakly struck XF in order to convey to others what the coin looks like. It's not the designations which distort the marketplace it is the grading system which imparts very little information about the look or condition of a coin which affects our perceptions. The designations are a small step toward getting more desciption in the grading system.

[keithdagen]

We do the same thing with the grading of circulated coins and it can be even worse here, especially with buffalo nickels.

 

And with SLQ's, they throw out the date visibility requirements based on the rest of the details of Ms. Liberty. Nothing like a VF coin where the date is barely legible.

[BillJones]

I agree with Cladking that too much emphasis is placed on the "full horn" for Buffalo nickels. Some of these coins didn't have full horns when they were struck. Some dates that are almost always poorly struck are and should be worth a premium with they are fully struck. Other pieces should be graded based upon surfaces with a note for "weak strike" or some such language.

 

As for the Standing Liberty Quarters you don't need to go down to VF to find weak dates. I had a 1920 in PCGS MS-63 holder that had a bearly readable date. The grade was totally accurate, although I did buy and sell the coin at a discount price.

[Hoot]

With buffalo nickels, there are so many focal areas that a more useful designation would be "weak strike" as has been suggested!

 

Hoot

[GDJMSP]

I agree with you EVP - it should be hard for a coin to get a full strike designation. As a matter of fact it is. And I think - stress think - that there is a reason why Full Strike is not and should not be used as a designation. As I said before - a coin is not considered to be fully struck until it achieves the grade of MS69 or 70. And since it is necessary for a coin to be fully struck to merit those grades - is it not superfluous to then say that the coin is fully struck ? We already know it is or it would not have that grade.

 

To me the reason that designations are used in the first place is to better describe the coin. The given coin may only be deserving of an MS66 grade - and as such it is not fully struck. But it may be struck well enough that it does deserve something extra in the way of a description - a strike designation. The designation is but an adjective.

 

As an example - there are many MS66 Franklin halves - but only some of them have the FBL designation. Why ? Because those that have full bell lines are just a little bit better struck than the ones that don't. So the FBL designation let's people know that - it is an additional description of the coins condition. None of the MS66 coins are fully struck - but some are struck better than others.

 

To me it is the reason that a given designation is chosen in the first place that matters. They choose a particular area of the coin series that is not often struck in full detail. For an SLQ - that is the head. For a Franklin - it is the bell lines. For a Jefferson - it's the steps - and so on. These areas typically do not strike up well on a given coin. So when a coin is found that is well struck in these areas - it deserves some mark of recognition - therefore the designations.

 

The grade of a coin - the NGC * - the strike designation - CAM or UCAM - PL or DPL - all of these things describe the condition of the coin. And each one of them offer us a little bit more information about that condition. Take even one of them away - and that describes the coin as well. It tells us that those things are lacking for the coin in question.

 

Imagine if you will - that you have been a collector for many years. All of your life you have collected only the finest coins for your collection. But suddenly you lose your eyesight due to an accident. You understand all of the terminology used to describe coins - but you cannot see them any longer. But you still love coins and want to continue with your collection. You go to an auction - and there are two coins up for sale that you want. Coin #1 is an NGC MS67 Franklin half. Coin #2 is an MS67 NGC * FBL Franklin half.

 

Which coin will you buy ?

 

 

[EVillageProwler]

As I said before - a coin is not considered to be fully struck until it achieves the grade of MS69 or 70.

 

Huh???

 

Where is it written that being fully struck implies MS69? I can believe that being MS69 implies being fully struck, but that's it. The implication is only uni-directional.

 

EVP

 

[Wihlborg]

Hi Hoot,

 

At this time we have designations for Franklin half dollars, standing liberty quarters, Mercury dimes, Jefferson nickels, and now we are about to add Roosevelt dimes. I can't help but think that this is beginning to get out of control.

 

The collectors who cared about these attributes sought them out long before the grading companies began adding them to the slab labels. If these attributes matter that much to a collector he or she should know enough about the series they are interested in to be able to tell if a coin they are looking at possesses them or not.

 

I will give an example using Buffalo nickels, a series I know that both you and I like. When I go to a coin show and look at buffalo nickel, I look to see if it has a full horn and split tail. These are attributes I am interested in so I know what to look for. Both of these attributes are not currently listed on slab labels, but if they were would I buy a coin without looking for them just because the label says they are there? NO!

 

Are we really at the point where we need the grading companies to add every attribute of a coin to the slabs label? I sure hope not. We are living with the designations we have now and there is no going back, but I for one would not like to see this trend continue. I know some people say they would like to see a full strike designation for all series. This is something I hope never happens for a couple of reasons, one of which is what about all the coins that were already graded before the designation? If you sought out and bought coins with full strikes what do you do then, send them all back in to be regraded? I think this would cause chaos within the hobby. I can sympathize with the Roosevelt collectors who are going through this very dilemma now.

 

John

 

[gmarguli]

The collectors who cared about these attributes sought them out long before the grading companies began adding them to the slab labels.

 

Anyone have any idea how many (rough guess of a percent) collectors sought out the previous attributes? Perhaps the old auction catalogs could give some idea about this? (i.e. an auction description from 1960 talks about FSB on Mercs or FBL on Franklins?).

 

 

If these attributes matter that much to a collector he or she should know enough about the series they are interested in to be able to tell if a coin they are looking at possesses them or not.

 

Same could be said about grade. If the collector cares enough about a certain series, he should be able to tell the grade without the slab. The sad thing is that this isn't true with most collectors.

 

 

[BankNote1]

While I don't collect SLQ's. I have seen enough SLQ's, to understand what a FH is and what isn't. I just don't understand the huge price difference some FH's bring over SLQ's with part of a leaf from FH. But you can find FH's without all the shield rivets. It looks to me that the central area should command more attention than it does. The reverse is also left out as well. Sometimes the eagle has breast feathers and sometimes it doesn't. A full strike designation would be good on this series IMO.

[Wihlborg]

Hi Greg,

 

Same could be said about grade. If the collector cares enough about a certain series, he should be able to tell the grade without the slab. The sad thing is that this isn't true with most collectors.

I agree, and it is sad. But I see the call for more designations as being different from the grading companies certifying a coins grade.

 

As I see it if for example a collector is interested in FBL’s on Franklin half’s he knows what it is that he wants or he wouldn’t want it in the first place. To what degree the detail would need to be before he would be satisfied is up to him, so he can look for it himself. This is true with any attribute someone finds appealing over the grade of the coin, full strike, outstanding luster, beautiful toning, full steps, etc.

 

IMO there are two things driving the call for more designations, money and registry points. Once a new designation is made ‘official’ by a grading company adding it to labels and the registry sets the dealers can charge more for these coins because people looking for more points for their registry sets will pay the premium.

 

We can use what’s happening with Roosevelt dimes as an example. Before the grading companies said they would begin the full torch designations, if you were looking for a coin to add to your set and a full torch was important to you than you looked for a coin with a full torch. If a full torch was not important to you than you might or might not buy a coin with a full torch. It would depend on if the coin had other attributes you did find important. All things being the same other than the full torch both coins are worth the same monetarily and in the registry. But once the grading companies begin adding the full torch designation every coin without that designation will be worth less both monetarily and in the registry. I feel this is very unfair to those who may have spent a lot of time and money on their sets.

 

Now to help clear up where it is I am coming from I would like to add that I have a complete set of MS-65 or better Roosevelt dimes some with full torch’s some without. These coins are all raw and I have no intension of having them certified and added to the registry. I also have a number of Franklin half's again some with FBL's some without. I don’t buy coins based upon whether or not they have a designation. I buy coins I like. If I find a beautiful Franklin half I won’t pass on it just because it might not have FBL’s they are not that important to me.

 

I always felt that a large part of the enjoyment in collecting anything is the hunt and then attaining what ever it was you were looking for. When I look at a coin I am thinking of adding to my collection I look for ALL the attributes that are important to me for that series or issue. If we keep getting more and more designations we will never need to look at a coin again, all we will need to do is read a slab label!

 

Say good-bye to the excitement of the hunt.

 

John

[GDJMSP]

As I said before - a coin is not considered to be fully struck until it achieves the grade of MS69 or 70.

 

Huh???

 

Where is it written that being fully struck implies MS69? I can believe that being MS69 implies being fully struck, but that's it. The implication is only uni-directional.

 

I agree it is only uni-directional. I don't see where my comment led you to believe I was saying otherwise.

[LucyBop]

Say good-bye to the excitement of the hunt.

 

Absolutely untrue, I have searched for Full Torchies at a recent coin show and also at some local dealers and it was very exciting to me to find some gems, it gave me something to focus on and look for in the Roosies... I dig it and I wonder which issue will be a conditional rarity that may rival the 53s Frankie FBL....

[Wihlborg]

Lucy,

 

I have searched for Full Torchies at a recent coin show and also at some local dealers and it was very exciting to me to find some gems

 

You just agreed with me! That is my point You can do it on your own if you want to. We don't need a designation to tell us what we are looking at.

[LucyBop]

Okay, and it was tons of fun Daddy-o! More Full Torchies for me!!!

[Dermott]

...

 

If you're looking at the coins in person, you're right, but like the original introduction of the grading services, I believe this is more geared towards the sight-unseen segment of the coin market. Would you pay a premium for a F* (Full whatever) coin unslabbed without seeing it first just because a mail-order or online dealer said the coin fit the designation of F*? The chances of being burned are pretty high in that case.

 

I just hope the companies don't go so far with the idea only to end up putting TOO many extra designations on the slabs.

[Wihlborg]

Hi Matt,

 

I believe this is more geared towards the sight-unseen segment of the coin market. Would you pay a premium for a F* (Full whatever) coin unslabbed without seeing it first just because a mail-order or online dealer said the coin fit the designation of F*? The chances of being burned are pretty high in that case.

 

No I would not, but let me ask you a question. Would you buy a coin online or mail order that did not have a return policy? There is no guarantee that any coin bought sight unseen will be acceptable to the buyer for any reason including the grade. That's why I would never buy from anyone without a return policy.

 

I just hope the companies don't go so far with the idea only to end up putting TOO many extra designations on the slabs.

 

I agree that is exactly my concern. Are we someday going to be at the point were we have a slab label that is longer than a two-bit crooks rap sheet?

 

Another point is that as collectors we can't have someone holding our hands all along the way. At some point we have to be able to go it alone. Lets face it, just because it my be on a label does not make it true and if we blindly buy coins going on only what the label says than we might as well just collect labels… Who needs those pesky little metal disks anyway?

 

John